British Empire: did the good points outweigh the bad, or vice versa?

Question

I am a diehard Imperialist, Colonialist and general right-wing British Nationalist but for this question I am keeping my opinions quiet and please don't let them influence your answer.

What I'd like to know, from as unbiased a perspective as possible, is did the good points of the British Empire outweigh the bad or vice versa, in the long run? From the perspective of Britain, the Colonies and her enemies.

Thanks!

Answer 1

As a student of history, to my mind, the question of a development as complex and as vast as imperialism cannot be judged by value loaded categories of good or bad... remnants of the imperialist perspective would still continue to hail the inherent 'goodness' of british rule in spreading the light of democracy,liberal rights, and modernity in general to the ex colonies.. an argument which may still be used to to justify armed interventions in countries deemed dangerous, backward and remnants of a pre modern era.. to understand imperialism, one needs to recognise the nuanced nature of the unequal relationship between the colony and the metropolis that it entailed.. to recognise the complexity of the relationship that altered economic, political, social and cultural ways of being..that cannot merely be explained in terms of the metropolis in the case of your question britain as the only initiator of change..and the colony as the passive recipient of its benevolence..try reading some new works on imperialism in order to really understand how different perspectives look at the british empire..history goes much deeper than judgements of good or bad..and lastly, there is no "unbiased" perspective. one's perspective will always be shaped by one's context..what can be is a constant questioning of one's assumptions..

Answer 2

I'm not sure a question like that has any meaning, whether asked about the British Empire, the Roman Empire, or the invention of agriculture. The effects were so many and varied that we can't possibly know all of them. We can't even know all of the -major- effects, because we can't know what would have happened without those things.

Just on a single-person level, no British Empire, no America, no Thoreau. No Ghandi, no Martin Luther King. If there were no Empire, would World War I have turned out the same? If Germany had won WWI, does that mean no Hitler? No Churchill? Fair trade, but who knows?

If GB hadn't taken over all those places in Africa, would some other power have done so? France seemed to be pretty good at it--better, in a lot of ways. Would great leaders have emerged -- or great tyrants -- that we never saw?

How can you tell, in a world in which, "I have a headache tonight," can affect the gene pool for generations?

I do believe that there are better and worse choices, but only in the short term -- maybe 50 or 100 years, at the most. I believe there are good and evil choices, too, but those don't depend on what happens years later.

Sorry to be so long-windedly ignorant-- but at least it's a -principled- ignorance! I don't have anything against alternate history for fun, but I believe it's totally meaningless.

Answer 3

Did spreading the ideas of democracy and equal justice for all out weigh the lack of representation or the use of force to keep control of the colonies. As one looks across the globe one can see democratic governments where the British empire once was. If not for the British empire would they be democratic today? The British idea of civilization has left an indelible mark on the entire world. Entire continents are democracies because of the influence of the British empire. But for the lack of representation of native colonists the British empire might still be sanding today.

Answer 4

i'd say the infrastructure and investment in countries all over the world (not just in the empire) as a result of the empire, and considering the advances made by the British empire, i would personally say yes the good pionts out weigh the bad

Answer 5

1